Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by swiss

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

The Australian's did that with Japanese prisoner's in the pacific a lot and had no qualms about it.

I think too many people here have been conned by the Bush/neo-con propaganda that a clean war where only "bad people" get hurt is possible

[Romanator21]

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

Yes, I whole-heartedly support mass execution. (lol)

But seriously, that's the reality of war. I would bet that if you were in such a situation you would not give a second thought to strafing those troops. It's only from your comfortable stress-free position at your desk, not having experienced years of horror in war, that you think otherwise.

[FPSOlkor]

Originally Posted by swiss

If they were just falling back to recollect - ok.

But it's may '45: they were already defeated, no danger coming from them, just running to surrender to the Americans rather than to the Red Army.

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

Starting from the moment when capitulation was signed ALL German units were ORDERED to stop fighting and stay where they were/ If they DISOBEYEDORDER they were legitimate target. Example from the West - U-boat, whichwere hunted for for at least a month after hostilities ended.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, Red Army had a "slight" problem when approaching Germany and Berlin. Ilya Ehrenburg's speeches and the propaganda had driven the soldiers to a frenzy "to kill the nazis in their wombs, in their nest..kill them all, show no mercy, strike them down"..This worked fine when the war was not going well, troops rallied but closer to Germany how to restrain them anymore? They should come as a glorious Red Army, liberators of nazism brining freedom to the oppressed proletariat of Europe. So no wonder when reports of Red Army's acts on first German towns occupied reached civilians and soldiers = to west no matter what.

Rapes and other crimes were done by ALL sides of war, not just Germans. So no-one can sit on the high horse of morality and justify their acts. War is hell but no-one is clean.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by swiss

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.


Cheers!

[dduff442]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.


Cheers!

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by dduff442

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

Never heard of it - but Prussian allegiance is legendary, and that means to the last man.
Got any links?

Setting aside "cheese-eating"

Actually it's "frog-eating".



sidenote:

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by swiss

Actually it's "frog-eating".



sidenote:

The Americans were just upset that Saddam started to sell his oil in the late 90's through French interests for Euros rather than US Dollars

Truth be known its probably the REAL reason behind the Iraq War

[Theshark888]

Originally Posted by dduff442

A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other.

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

[dduff442]

Originally Posted by Theshark888

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

I understand this is sometimes correct and that opinion is divided about Moscow '41. The broader context needs be taken into account as well, however.

Hitler was given repeated warnings by his Marshals that, in spite of the fact that they were still moving forward, thing's had already changed from dangerous to critical in the weeks before the launch of the Soviet counter-offensive. It was Hitler's idea to keep pressing on to the point where the German forces were obviously over-exposed and logistics had broken down.

As with Napoleon Hitler had plenty of supplies, including winter clothing -- hundreds of miles away in Poland.

1941 was the year when Hitler's megalomania reached full bloom. In March '42, Goebbels recorded in his diary Hitler's remark that if it wasn't for his "iron will" the front could easily have fallen apart -- not only was their no contrition for his contribution to the disaster, one from which the German army would never fully recover, the Grofaz who had never once visited the front accorded his own determination primary credit for stabilising matters from the comfort of his Berlin chancellry almost a thousand miles away.

For the '42 campaign, army groups Center and North were enfeebled. Their infantry divisions were well below strength and stripped of motor transport and many new recruits inadequately trained. Their tank and motorised divisions had been 'de-motorised', i.e. their support and logistical arms had their motor transport taken away so that they no longer possessed operational mobility. Only AG South had been restored near to full strength.

I'm insufficiently familiar with matters to assess the correctness of the "stand or die" order. It can't be viewed in isolation, however. The gross errors by the General Staff and by Hitler that lead to it must be taken into account.

dduff